Mathias Lasgaard *

tor analysis supported a unidimensional structure of the measure. The results, highly comparable to the origi-nal version of the scale, indicate that the Danish version of UCLA is a reliable and valid measure of loneliness.

1993; Schultz & Moore, 1988), depression (Koenig, Isaacs, & Schwartz, 1994; Lau, Chan, & Lau,1999), anxiety (Johnson, LaVoie, Spenceri, & Mahoney-Wernli, 2001; Moore & Schultz, 1983),

* Tel.: +45 8942 4967; fax: +45 8942 4901.E-mail address: mathiasl@psy.au.dk

www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Personality and Individual Dierences 42 (2007) 135913660191-8869/$ - see front matter 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Loneliness; UCLA; Rating scales; Adolescence; Reliability; Validity; Factor analysis

1. Introduction

Loneliness is a serious problem among adolescence (Jones & Carver, 1991; West, Kellner, &Morre-West, 1986) and has been associated with low self-esteem (Brage, Meredith, & Woodward,Department of Psychology, University of Aarhus, Jens Chr. Skous Vej 4, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark

Received 19 May 2006; received in revised form 25 September 2006; accepted 5 October 2006Available online 28 November 2006

Abstract

The objective of this study was to examine the psychometric properties of a Danish version of the UCLALoneliness Scale (UCLA). The 20-item scale was completed along with other measures in a national youthprobability sample of 379 8th grade students aged 1317. The scale showed high internal consistency, and cor-relations between UCLA and measures of emotional loneliness, social loneliness, self-esteem, depression,extraversion, andneuroticism supported the convergent anddiscriminant validity of the scale. Exploratory fac-Reliability and validity of the Danish version of theUCLA Loneliness Scaledoi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.10.013

scale (Russell, Peplau, & Ferguson, 1978), based on statements used by individuals to describefeelings of loneliness, suered from methodological weaknesses. However, the scale was revised

1360 M. Lasgaard / Personality and Individual Dierences 42 (2007) 13591366in a second version (Russell, Peplau, & Cutrona, 1980), and a third version (Russell, 1996).The two revised scales are easy to administer and have satisfactory psychometric properties,including high internal consistency, typically aP .89 in adolescent populations (e.g. Koeniget al., 1994; Mahon, Yarcheski, & Yarcheski, 2004), and good test-retest reliability (e.g. Hart-shorne, 1993; Russell, 1996). Moreover, Russell (1996) and Russell et al. (1980) have reported evi-dence of convergent validity, indicated by strong correlations between UCLA and other measuresof loneliness, and discriminate validity, e.g. supported by conrmatory factor analysis indicatingthat UCLA and measures of social support dene distinct factors.The developers of UCLA consider the scale to be a unidimensional measure of loneliness (Russell,

1996). However, exploratory factor analyses of the Revised UCLA (second version) have yielded anumber of dierent structures, on which basis researchers have argued that the scale comprises one(Pretoirus, 1993), two (e.g. Knight, Chisholm, Marsh, & Godfrey, 1988; Mahon, Yarcheski, &Yarcheski, 1995), three (e.g. Austin, 1983; McWhirter, 1990), four (Hojat, 1982) or ve (e.g. Hojat,1982; Neto, 1992) factors. As stressed by Russell (1996), some of the derived factors reect the direc-tion of items, indicating that ratings are aected by acquiescence or other similar response styles.Moreover, conrmatory analyses have supported the unidimensionality of the scale (Hartshorne,1993; Russell, 1996). Evidently, the factorial structure of UCLA remains rather controversial.UCLA has been used and validated in many dierent countries, including Argentina (Sacchi &

Richaud de Minzi, 1997), Canada (de Grace, Joshi, & Pelletier, 1993), Germany (Doring & Bortz,1993), Greece (Anderson & Malikiosi-Loizos, 1992), Iran (Hojat, 1982), Portugal (Neto, 1992),Russia (Ruchkin, Eisemann, and Hagglof, 1999), South Africa (Pretoirus, 1993), Turkey (Uruk& Demir, 2003), and Zimbabwe (Wilson, Cutts, Lees, Mapungwana, & Maunganidze, 1992).All studies found the adapted scale a sucient measure of loneliness.The goal of this study was to standardize a Danish measure of loneliness. To do so, we aimed to

examine the validity and reliability of a Danish version of UCLA in a representative adolescentpopulation by testing the internal consistency, the convergent and discriminant validity, and thefactorial structure of the scale.

2. Method

2.1. Subjects

The data in this study were collected from a questionnaire survey with a national probabilitysample of 379 youngsters aged 1317 (M = 14.1 years, SD = 0.4). The sample was geographicallyanorexia nervosa (Troop & Bifulco, 2002), and suicide ideation and behaviour (Garnefski, Diek-stra, & de Heus, 1992; Roberts, Roberts, & Chen, 1998). However, very little research in lonelinesshas been done in adolescent populations in Denmark, which may be due to the lack of validatedversions of well-established measures. The present article examines a Danish version of the UCLALoneliness Scale (UCLA) (Russell, 1996); the most widely used self-report scale for measuringloneliness in adolescent and adult populations (Hartshorne, 1993; Russell, 1996). The originalstratied and 39 randomly selected schools that taught 8th grade students were approached with

M. Lasgaard / Personality and Individual Dierences 42 (2007) 13591366 1361the purpose to recruit one randomly selected class from each school. Twenty-two schools agreedto participate. Each class consisted of between 6 and 24 pupils (M = 17.2 pupils, SD = 4.0), andan average of 90% of the students were present on the day of the study. All students present par-ticipated in the study.

2.2. Procedures

The study was introduced through a letter to the headmaster of the selected schools, explainingthe aim of the study, and the selection procedure in case there was more than one 8th grade classin the school (the primacy of the initials of the class teacher decided the class). A letter to the classteacher explained the aim of the study and described the procedure of the data collection, the needof introduction, monitoring and support, and the condentiality procedures (e.g. sealing the re-turn envelope in front of the pupils). Finally, a letter to each student explained the purpose,the condentiality, and the collection procedure of the study.

3. Measures

The UCLA Loneliness Scale (third version) (Russell, 1996) was translated from the originalEnglish version into Danish by the author and back translated by a person holding a Masterof Arts. The original scale was compared with the back-translated scale and non-uniform itemsdiscussed, which led to minor revisions of the Danish translation. A professor of clinical psychol-ogy and four psychology students at master level then reviewed the translated UCLA, also caus-ing minor revisions. Finally, the measure was tested in a pilot study with six 8th grade students,who conrmed that the written instruction, items, and rating system were understandable.The scale consists of 20 items (11 positive and 9 negative), describing subjective feelings of lone-

liness, none of which refers specically to loneliness. Consequently, the scale does not directlymeasure states that laypeople attribute as loneliness, but rather the scale measures a theoreticallydened and scientically validated understanding of loneliness. The 20 items are rated on a 4-point Likert scale in accordance with the rate of frequency, ranging from never (1) to always(4). Scores on the scale range from 20 to 80 with higher scores reecting greater loneliness.With the purpose to test for convergent validity, the Peer Network and Dyadic Loneliness Scale

(PNDLS) (Hoza, Bukowski, & Beery, 2000) was included. PNDLS is a new 2 8-item child andadolescence Loneliness Scale, consisting of two subscales: (1) Peer Network Loneliness Scale(PNLS) that measures social loneliness caused by the lack of involvement in a social network,and (2) Peer Dyadic Loneliness Scale (PDLS) that measures emotional loneliness caused by theabsence of a close dyadic friendship. The measure was translated and revised using the same pro-cedure as with UCLA. The two subscales were scored on a 4-point Likert scale and showed goodinternal consistency in the study (PNLS: a = .83; PDLS: a = .77).Since strong correlations have been found between loneliness and measures of personality and

depression, it is relevant to investigate the discriminant validity of UCLA by comparing the mag-nitude of correlations between UCLA and such measures with the correlations between UCLAand other measures of loneliness (Russell, 1996). For that reason Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale(SES) (Rosenberg, 1965) was used to measure self-esteem. The scale comprises 10-items, scored

on a 4-point Likert scale, and has been translated into Danish by Prof. Elklit (Department of

The average score for UCLA total was 37.46 (SD = 10.38; range: 2075), which is slightlyabove the average score of 3.283 adolescents (M = 15.1), based on data from 21 studies (summa-

1362 M. Lasgaard / Personality and Individual Dierences 42 (2007) 13591366rized by Lasgaard, 2006). The mean, median (36) and modes (28,34) were fairly similar, indicatingthat the distribution of scores was quite normal. However, the scores were slightly positivelyskewed (.72,p < .05), suggesting that rather few students scored highly on the scale. Notably, asimilar pattern was reported in four studies using the original version of the scale (Russell,1996). No signicant dierences in loneliness scores were found in relation to age, gender, countryof birth, living arrangements, number of siblings, and residential location.

4.3. Reliability and validity

The internal consistency of the scale was high with a Cronbachs Alpha of .92, which is com-Psychology, University of Aarhus). SES showed good internal consistency in the present study(a = .88). Moreover, the subscales Extraversion and Neuroticism from the Eysenck PersonalityQuestionnaire Revised Short Scale (EPQ-RSS) (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1991) were included to mea-sure two well-established personality traits. Each subscale comprises 12 statements, scored on a 2-point yes/no scale. The two subscales were translated and revised using the same procedure aswith UCLA. Both subscales showed good internal consistency in the study (both scalesa = .85). Beck Depression Inventory for Youth (BDI-Y) (Beck, Beck, & Jolley, 2004), validatedin a Danish sample by Thastum, Paulsen, and Hansen (2004), was used to measure depression.The measure comprises 20 symptoms of depression, scored on a 4-point Likert scale in accordancewith the degree of occurrence, and had a high internal consistency in the study (a = .94).

4. Results

4.1. Sample characteristics

The great majority of the students were 14 years old, so analyses of age are based on threegroups (students < 14 years (n = 19); students = 14 years (n = 315); students > 14 years(n = 43)); two students did not report their age. The gender distribution was 53% male and47% female. Ninety-four percent of the pupils were born in Denmark, while 6% were born in othercountries. Seventy-one percent of the students lived with both parents, 28% lived with one parent,and 1% lived with others. Six percent of the pupils were an only child, 41% had one sibling, and53% had two or more siblings. Twenty-six percent of the students lived in rural areas (i.e. in thecountryside but not in a village), 24% lived in a village/small town (610,000 inhabitants), and 50%of the students lived in a city (10,0001,500,000 inhabitants). The reported characteristics resem-ble general gures of Danish 8th grade students (cf. Lasgaard, 2006). Moreover, the sample had adistribution of public and private schools similar to the general distribution of schools. In sum-mary, the study has a high probability of being representative of all Danish 8th grade students.

4.2. Descriptive statisticsparable to results of the original scale where Cronbachs Alpha ranged from .89 to .94 across four

M. Lasgaard / Personality and Individual Dierences 42 (2007) 13591366 1363dierent samples (Russell, 1996). Table 1 shows the correlations between UCLA and the otherincluded measures. As expected, and in accordance with studies including the original scale (Rus-sell, 1996), UCLA loneliness scores were highly correlated with the two subscales of the other in-cluded loneliness measure, PNLS (r = .73,p < .0005), and PDLS (r = .69,p < .0005). This resultsupports the convergent validity of the scale. Moreover, UCLA was highly related to the measuresof self-esteem (r = .58,p < .0005), depression (r = .59,p < .0005), and the personality traits ofextraversion (r = .57,p < .0005) and neuroticism (r = 58,p < .0005). However, the magnitudesof these correlations were evidently less than the correlations found between UCLA and thetwo subscales of PNDLS. Also the magnitudes of the correlations were less than those reportedbetween the original UCLA and two other measures of loneliness (r = .65; 72,p < .001) (Russell,1996). These ndings support the discriminant validity of the adapted scale.

4.4. Factor analysis

The structure of UCLA was investigated by use of factor analysis. An exploratory analysis withdirect oblimin rotation (loading criteriaP .30) was performed to determine the optimal factorstructure for this sample. Criteria for identifying the factors were based on (1) Glorfelds(1995) version of parallel analysis with a sample size of N = 379 and k = 20 variables (the prin-cipal components must be greater than 1.505 eigenvalues for the rst component, 1.410 for thesecond component, 1.341 for the third component, 1.280 for the fourth component, 1.230 forthe fth component, and 1.187 for the sixth component, using the 95th percentile and 5000 rep-

Table 1Correlation matrixa

Scale PNLS PDLS SES BDI-Y EPQ-RSS-E EPQ-RSS-N

UCLA .73 .69 .58 .59 .57 .58PNLS .69 .55 .47 .57 .47PDLS .41 .38 .47 .38SES .66 .30 .59BDI-Y .28 .73EPQ-RSS-E .41a All ps < .0005.lications), (2) the minimum average partials method (Velicer, 1976) using available syntax(OConnor, 2000), and (3) a scree plot. A two-factor solution explaining 50.0% of the variancemeeting the three criteria was identied. The eigenvalue was 8.018 for the rst factor and 1.990for the second factor. The solution comprised one factor with 19 items, and a second factor withnine items, including nine double loadings. One item (#17) did not load on any factor, which iswhy the factor analysis was repeated without this item. Using the same criteria for identifying fac-tors the second analysis extracted a two-factor solution with an eigenvalue of 9.894, explaining52.1% of the variance. The solution comprised one factor with 10 items, and a second factor withnine items. However, the two factors reect the direction of item wordings with the 10 rst loadingitems all being positively worded and with the nine items on the second factor all being negativelyworded. Similar ndings have been reported by Adams, Openshaw, Bennion, Mills, and Noble(1988), Austin (1983), Knight et al. (1988), and McWhirter (1990). As already mentioned, these

ber of student and adult populations (e.g. Russell, 1996; Wei, Shaer, Young, & Zakalik, 2005),which is why it seems highly likely that the Danish version will prove a sucient measure of lone-

1364 M. Lasgaard / Personality and Individual Dierences 42 (2007) 13591366liness in research in older populations. Another limitation of the study is that most of the mea-sures used to validate the Danish version of UCLA have not themselves been validated astranslated measures. Unfortunately, rather few measures of psychological constructs have beenvalidated in Denmark, which is why it in most cases was not possible to include standardizedmeasures.A problem associated with the former lack of a validated Danish measure of loneliness, is that

the available knowledge about loneliness is based on answers to single-item self-rating scalesabout the occurrence of loneliness (e.g. how often do you feel lonely?), frequently includedin large-scale studies (e.g. (King, Wold, Tudor-Smith, & Harel, 1996)). However, it is very doubt-results indicate that the ratings of UCLA are aected by acquiescence or other similar responsestyles, rather than dierent typologies of loneliness. Moreover, two conrmatory analyses havesupported the unidimensionality of the scale (Hartshorne, 1993; Russell, 1996). Therefore, aone-factor solution (loading criteriaP.30) including all 20 items was carried out, which extracteda factor that carried 19 items and had an eigenvalue of 8.018, explaining 40.1% of the variance.Notably, the excluded item (#17), which also showed the smallest loading in two samples of theoriginal scale (Russell, 1996), loaded with .27 on the factor, just beneath the loading criteria. Forthat reason the item was maintained in the scale. In summary, the performed exploratory analysessupport a unidimensional structure of the Danish version of UCLA.

5. Discussion

This study has examined a Danish version of the UCLA Loneliness Scale. In summary, the psy-chometric data presented support the validity and reliability of the scale. The internal consistencyof the scale was high and the reported correlations with measures of emotional loneliness, socialloneliness, self-esteem, depression, and personality traits, supported the convergent and discrim-inant validity of the scale. Moreover, these results were highly comparable to the original scale.Interestingly, the loneliness scores of the adolescent group were slightly positively skewed, sincerelatively few students reported high levels of loneliness. As stressed by Russell (1996), researchersstudying loneliness should bear in mind that distributional problems may aect the results of sta-tistical tests.Contrary to other factor analyses of the Revised UCLA (second version), which for the most

part has supported a multidimensional structure, the exploratory factor analyses of the Danishversion of UCLA (third version) supported a unidimensional structure. This may be explainedby the minor revisions of the scale, including some changes in item wording presented in the thirdversion of the UCLA. Moreover, some of the derived factors, reported in earlier studies, reectthe direction of item wording. Hopefully, future research will solve the problem of ratings reect-ing the direction of item wordings.One limitation of the study is that the investigated sample consists of a narrow age group, the

reason being that the measures were selected from a large-scale national probability study of 8thgrade students. However, the original version of UCLA has been used successfully in a great num-ful how useful such answers are, i.e. as they are more prone to eects of the willingness to report,

publications. European Series, 69.

M. Lasgaard / Personality and Individual Dierences 42 (2007) 13591366 1365Knight, R. G., Chisholm, B. J., Marsh, N. V., & Godfrey, H. P. D. (1988). Some normative, reliability, and factoranalytic data for the Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44(2), 203206.

Koenig, L. J., Isaacs, A. M., & Schwartz, J. A. J. (1994). Sex dierences in adolescent depression and loneliness: why areboys lonelier if girls are more depressed? Journal of Research in Personality, 28(1), 2743.

Lasgaard, M. (2006). Ensom blandt andre: En psykologisk undersgelse af ensomhed hos unge i Danmark. [Lonelyamong others: A psychological investigation of loneliness in young people in Denmark]. Psykologisk Studieskrift-serie, 9(1), 1131.

Lau, S., Chan, D. W. K., & Lau, P. S. Y. (1999). Facets of loneliness and depression among Chinese children andand the understanding of what loneliness is. Moreover, a meta-analysis of reported gender dier-ences in loneliness indicates that studies, which use single-item self-rating scales, achieves resultsrather dierent from studies, which measure loneliness by using UCLA (Borys & Perlman, 1985).In conclusion, a Danish measure of loneliness has been standardized in a national probabilitystudy, and is available for future research, which could focus on predictors and consequencesof loneliness, and possible mediating factors (e.g. attributions, coping, and attachment).

References

Adams, G. R., Openshaw, D. K., Bennion, L., Mills, T., & Noble, S. (1988). Loneliness in late adolescence: a socialskills training study. Journal of Adolescent Research, 3(1), 8196.

Anderson, L. R., & Malikiosi-Loizos, M. (1992). Reliability data for a Greek translation of the Revised UCLALoneliness Scale: comparisons with data from the USA. Psychological Reports, 71(2), 665666.

Austin, B. A. (1983). Factorial structure of the UCLA Loneliness Scale. Psychological Reports, 53(3), 883889.Beck, J. S., Beck, A. T., & Jolley, J. B. (2004). Beck Youth Inventories: manual. Copenhagen: Dansk Psykologisk Forlag.Borys, S., & Perlman, D. (1985). Gender dierences in loneliness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11(1),

6375.Brage, D., Meredith, W., & Woodward, J. (1993). Correlates of loneliness among Midwestern adolescents. Adolescence,

28(111), 685694.de Grace, G.-R., Joshi, P., & Pelletier, R. (1993). LEchelle de solitude de lUniversite Laval (ESUL): Validation

canadienne-francaise du UCLA Loneliness Scale. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 25(1), 1227.Doring, N., & Bortz, J. (1993). Psychometrische Einsamkeitforschung: Deutsche Neukonstruktion der UCLA

Loneliness Scale. Diagnostica, 39(3), 224239.Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1991).Manual of the Eysenck Personality Scales. London: Hodder and Stoughton.Garnefski, N., Diekstra, R. F., & de Heus, P. (1992). A population-based survey of the characteristics of high school

students with and without a history of suicidal behavior. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 86(3), 189196.Glorfeld, L. W. (1995). An improvement of Horns parallel analysis methodology for selecting the correct number of

factors to retain. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55(3), 377393.Hartshorne, T. S. (1993). Psychometric properties and conrmatory factor analysis of the UCLA Loneliness Scale.

Journal of Personality Assessment, 61(1), 182195.Hojat, M. (1982). Psychometric characteristics of the UCLA Loneliness Scale: a study with Iranian college students.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, 42(3), 917925.Hoza, B., Bukowski, W. M., & Beery, S. (2000). Assessing peer network and dyadic loneliness. Journal of Clinical Child

Psychology, 29(1), 119128.Johnson, H. D., LaVoie, J. C., Spenceri, M. C., & Mahoney-Wernli, M. A. (2001). Peer conict avoidance: associations

with loneliness, social anxiety, and social avoidance. Psychological Reports, 88(1), 227235.Jones, W. H., & Carver, M. D. (1991). Adjustment and coping implications of loneliness. In C. R. Snyder, & D. R.

Forsyth (Eds.), Handbook of social and clinical psychology: the health perspective (pp. 395415). New York:Pergamon Press.

King, A., Wold, B., Tudor-Smith, C., & Harel, Y. (1996). The health of youth: a cross-national survey, WHO regionaladolescents. Journal of Social Psychology, 139(6), 713730.

Mahon, N. E., Yarcheski, T. J., & Yarcheski, A. (1995). Validation of the Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale foradolescents. Research in Nursing and Health, 18(3), 263270.

Mahon, N. E., Yarcheski, A., & Yarcheski, T. J. (2004). Social support and positive health practices in earlyadolescents: a test of mediating variables. Clinical Nursing Research, 13(3), 216236.

McWhirter, B. T. (1990). Factor analysis of the Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale. Current Psychology, 9(1), 5668.Moore, D., & Schultz, N. R. (1983). Loneliness at adolescence: correlates, attributions, and coping. Journal of Youth

1366 M. Lasgaard / Personality and Individual Dierences 42 (2007) 13591366and Adolescence, 12(2), 95100.Neto, F. (1992). Loneliness among Portuguese adolescents. Social Behaviour and Personality, 20(1), 1522.OConnor, B. P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and

Velicers MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 32(3), 396402.Pretoirus, T. B. (1993). The metric equivalence of the UCLA Loneliness Scale for a sample of South African students.

Educational and Psychosocial Measurement, 53(1), 233239.Roberts, R. E., Roberts, C. R., & Chen, R. Y. (1998). Suicidal thinking among adolescents with a history of attempted

suicide. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 37(12), 12941300.Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Ruchkin, V. V., Eisemann, M., & Hagglof, B. (1999). Hopelessness, loneliness, self-esteem, and personality in Russian

male delinquent adolescents versus controls. Journal of Adolescent Research, 14(4), 466482.Russell, D. W. (1996). UCLA Loneliness Scale (version 3): reliability, validity, and factor structure. Journal of

Personality Assessment, 66(1), 2040.Russell, D., Peplau, L. A., & Cutrona, C. E. (1980). The Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale: concurrent and discriminant

validity evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(3), 472480.Russell, D., Peplau, L. A., & Ferguson, M. L. (1978). Developing a measure of loneliness. Journal of Personality

Assessment, 42(3), 290294.Sacchi, C., & Richaud de Minzi, M. C. (1997). UCLAs revised scale of loneliness: an Argentinean adaptation. Revista

Argentina de Clinica Psicologica, 6(1), 4353.Schultz, N. R., & Moore, D. (1988). Loneliness: dierences across three age levels. Journal of Social and Personal

Relationships, 5(3), 275284.Thastum, M., Paulsen, K., & Hansen, H. S. (2004). Dokumentation for den danske udgave af Beck Youth Inventory

(BYI). [Documentation for the Danish version of Beck Youth Inventory (BYI)]. In J. Beck, A. Beck, & J. Jolley(Eds.), Beck Youth Inventories: manual (pp. 2935). Copenhagen: Dansk Psykologisk Forlag.

Troop, N. A., & Bifulco, A. (2002). Childhood social arena and cognitive sets in eating disorders. British Journal ofClinical Psychology, 41(2), 205211.

Uruk, A. C., & Demir, A. (2003). The role of peers and families in predicting the loneliness level of adolescents. Journalof Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 137(2), 179194.

Velicer, W. F. (1976). Determining the number of components from the matrix of partial correlations. Psychometrika,41(3), 321327.

Wei, M., Shaer, P. A., Young, S. K., & Zakalik, R. A. (2005). Adult attachment, shame, depression, and loneliness:the mediation role of basic psychological needs satisfaction. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 52(4), 591601.

West, D. A., Kellner, R., & Morre-West, M. (1986). The eects of loneliness: a review of the literature. ComprehensivePsychiatry, 27(4), 351363.

Wilson, D., Cutts, J., Lees, I., Mapungwana, S., & Maunganidze, L. (1992). Psychometric properties of the RevisedUCLA Loneliness Scale and two short-form measures of loneliness in Zimbabwe. Journal of Personality Assessment,59(1), 7281.

Reliability and validity of the Danish version of the UCLA Loneliness ScaleIntroductionMethodSubjectsProcedures

MeasuresResultsSample characteristicsDescriptive statisticsReliability and validityFactor analysis

DiscussionReferences